First scandal found in CRU email dump!
Ouroboros Rex
Environment, pushes denialist tripe from ClimateAudit, uses her university
affiliation to lend credence to her arguments in a dishonest email, which
implies illegal activity which did not exist.
This "unbiased" journal editor then follows up these malicious but
baseless accusations with quotes from two well known right wing lie sites.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt
> From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen <Sonj...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
> To: Stephanie Ferguson <stephanie...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Cc: "Peiser, Benny"
><B.J.P...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Patrick David Henderson
><pdhend...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Christopher Monckton
><monc...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: RE: Please take note of
>potetially serious allegations of scientific 'fraud' by CRU and Met Office
>
>
>
>
> Dear Stephanie
>
> I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work
>is based on the data provided by CRU (as does the
>work of the IPCC and of course UK climate
>policy). Some of this, very fundamentally, would
>now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and
>may even face future legal enquiries. It may be
>in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good
>time and become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.
>
> Perhaps you can comment on the following
>and pass the allegations made on to the relevant people.
>
> It is beyond my expertise to assess the
>claims made, but they would fit into my
>perception of the whole 'man-made global warming'
>cum energy policy debate. I know several of
>the people involved personally and have no
>reason to doubt their sincerity and honour as
>scientists, though I am also aware of their
>highly critical (of IPCC science) policy positions.
>
> I could also let you have statements by
>Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross McKitrick
>currently teaches at Westminister Business School
>and who is fully informed about the relevant
>issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Sonja B-C
>
> Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
> Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
> Hull University
> Editor, Energy&Environment
> Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk)
> HULL HU6 7RX
> Phone:(0044)1482 465369/465385
> Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
>
>
> TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
>
> a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
>
> " Jennifer Marohasy <jennifer...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
> Leading UK Climate Scientists Must
>Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
> <
><http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists->
>http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-
> must-explain-or-resign/>
>
> MOST scientific sceptics have been
>dismissive of the various reconstructions of
>temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest
>year of the past millennium. Our case has been
>significantly bolstered over the last week with
>statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting
>access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn
>and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has
>been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures
>over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
>
> Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data -
>which he had been asking for since
> 2003 - suggests that scientists at the
>Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom's
>Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a
>small subset of the available data to make their
>claims that recent years have been the hottest of
>the last millennium. When the entire data set is
>used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
> completely. [1]
>
> Mr McIntyre has previously showed
>problems with the mathematics behind the 'hockey
>stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research
>Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have
>continuously republished claiming the upswing in
>temperatures over the last 100 years is real and
>not an artifact of the methodology used - as
>claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same
>scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all
>the data. Recently they were forced to make more
>data available to Mr McIntyre after they
>published in the Philosophical Transactions of
>the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature
>and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it
> enforces.
>
> This week's claims by Steve McInyre that
>scientists associated with the UK Meteorology
>Bureau have been less than diligent are serious
>and suggest some of the most defended building
>blocks of the case for anthropogenic global
>warming are based on the indefensible when the
> methodology is laid bare.
>
> This sorry saga also raises issues
>associated with how data is archived at the UK
>Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets
>that spuriously support the case for global
>warming being promoted while complete data sets
>are kept hidden from the public - including from
>scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
>
> It is indeed time leading scientists at
>the Climate Research Centre associated with the
>UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
>
> [1] Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, by
>Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
>
> Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD
>
>
>
> b. National Review Online, 23 September 2009
>
><http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>By
>
>Patrick J. Michaels
>
>
> Imagine if there were no reliable
>records of global surface temperature. Raucous
>policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
>no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point
>be little more than a historical footnote, and
>President Obama would not be spending this U.N.
>session talking up a (likely unattainable)
>international climate deal in Copenhagen in
>December. Steel yourself for the new reality,
>because the data needed to verify the
>gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
>either lost or purged from some discarded
>computer. Only a very few people know what really
>happened, and they aren't talking much. And what
>little they are saying makes no sense.
> In the early 1980s, with funding from
>the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
>United Kingdom's University of East Anglia
>established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to
>produce the world's first comprehensive history
>of surface temperature. It's known in the trade
>as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors,
>Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the
>primary reference standard for the U.N.
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>until 2007. It was this record that prompted the
>IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence on global climate."
> Putting together such a record isn't at
>all easy. Weather stations weren't really
>designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing
>ones were usually established at points of
>commerce, which tend to grow into cities that
>induce spurious warming trends in their records.
>Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the
>afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by
>the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Sr.,
>many of the stations themselves are placed in
>locations, such as in parking lots or near heat
>vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
> So the weather data that go into the
>historical climate records that are required to
>verify models of global warming aren't the
>original records at all. Jones and Wigley,
>however, weren't specific about what was done to
>which station in order to produce their record,
>which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of
>0.6� +/- 0.2�C in the 20th century.
>
> Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an
>Australian scientist, wondered where that "+/-"
>came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in
>early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's
>response to a fellow scientist attempting to
>replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so
>invested in the work. Why should I make the data
>available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with
>it?"
> Reread that statement, for it is
>breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In
>fact, the entire purpose of replication is to
>"try and find something wrong." The ultimate
>objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is
>wrong.
>
> Then the story changed. In June 2009,
>Georgia Tech's Peter Webster told Canadian
>researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested
>raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So
>McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information
>Act request for the same data. Despite having
>been invited by the National Academy of Sciences
>to present his analyses of millennial
>temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't
>have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So
>his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the
>University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
> Faced with a growing number of such
>requests, Jones refused them all, saying that
>there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding
>the data between CRU and nations that supplied
>the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested
>those agreements, country by country, but only a
>handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third
>World countries and written in very vague language.
> It's worth noting that McKitrick and I
>had published papers demonstrating that the
>quality of land-based records is so poor that the
>warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first
>year for which we could compare those records to
>independent data from satellites) may have been
>overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who
>received the CRU data, published studies linking
>changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found
>otherwise).
> Enter the dog that ate global warming.
>
> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor
>of environmental studies at the University of
>Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data
>we have received into existing series or begun
>new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
>stations within a particular country or if all of
>an individual record should be freely available.
>Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that
>we were not able to keep the multiple sources for
>some sites, only the station series after
>adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore,
>do not hold the original raw data but only the
>value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
> The statement about "data storage" is
>balderdash. They got the records from somewhere.
>The files went onto a computer. All of the
>original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape
>drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the
>world's surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
> If we are to believe Jones's note to the
>younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data
>and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
>ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been
>an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster
>received some of the data this year. So the
>question remains: What was destroyed or lost,
>when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
>
> All of this is much more than an
>academic spat. It now appears likely that the
>U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
>legislation from its docket this fall - whereupon
>the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
>going to step in and issue regulations on
>carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
>can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a
>regulation can. If there are no data, there's no
>science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
>answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
>Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
>studies at the Cato Institute and author of
>Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.) "
>
>